For decades, IT architecture has been narrowly defined by evolving software programming patterns—object-oriented design, client-server, 2-tier to 3-tier, service-oriented, and microservices. While these patterns serve a purpose, they are not architecture—they are the materials of implementation. Yet, these patterns have been misleadingly served in the name of architecture.
In recent years, microservices have gained immense popularity as a software development paradigm. While microservices provide flexibility, scalability, and modularity, they are often mistaken for architecture. This misunderstanding stems from equating a development style or system design pattern with the broader scope of enterprise or product architecture.
In this blog, we explore why microservices are not architecture, how this confusion arises, and what true architecture encompasses.
What Microservices Cover
Microservices are a software development design pattern that emphasizes breaking down a monolithic application into smaller, self-contained services that communicate via APIs. They focus on:
Modularity: Creating independently deployable units of functionality.
Scalability: Allowing specific services to scale independently based on demand.
Fault Isolation: Containing failures within specific services to enhance reliability.
Technology Diversity: Enabling teams to use different tech stacks for different services.
These are system-level design choices, not architecture. While microservices solve specific problems, they do so within a limited scope—primarily focused on the Technology/Components Perspective.
The Core Problem: Microservices Are a Component, Not Architecture
Microservices represent decisions about how systems are built, not why, where, or how they align with business goals, processes, and long-term sustainability. Here’s why microservices fall short of being architecture:
1. Narrow Focus on Components
Microservices answer questions like, “How do we split our application into smaller units?”
True architecture answers broader questions, such as:
How do these services align with business processes?
How does this design enable long-term adaptability to changing organizational goals?
2. Lack of Business Context
Microservices address technical scalability but fail to address how the overall system supports business strategy or user needs.
For example: A payment microservice may scale perfectly, but if it doesn’t integrate seamlessly with order processing or compliance workflows, it becomes a bottleneck.
3. Fragmentation Without Holistic Vision
Without a unified architecture, microservices often lead to fragmented systems that lack cohesive governance.
Teams can end up with too many services or poorly integrated workflows, causing delays and inefficiencies.
4. Reactive Rather Than Proactive
Microservices often respond to current needs (e.g., breaking a monolith) but fail to proactively design for future growth, compliance, or operational resilience.
What True Architecture Encompasses
Architecture is about designing a unified system that aligns technology with business goals. The ICMG Enterprise Anatomy Model defines architecture across six perspectives and six variables within each perspective:
Six Perspectives of Architecture
Goals/Strategy Perspective:
How do microservices enable strategic goals like faster customer onboarding or regulatory compliance?
Business/Process Perspective:
How do services support workflows such as order management, customer support, or billing?
System/Models Perspective:
What systems interact with the microservices, and how do they exchange data?
Technology/Components Perspective:
What tools, frameworks, and platforms are used to build and deploy microservices?
Implementation Perspective:
How are microservices rolled out, monitored, and scaled?
Operations Perspective:
How do microservices ensure reliability, security, and adaptability over time?
The Microservices Trap
Here’s why many organizations fall into the trap of equating microservices with architecture:
1. Tool-Centric Mindset
Many teams view microservices as a “silver bullet” for system design, ignoring broader architectural goals.
Example: A team breaks a monolith into microservices but fails to map the services to business workflows, causing inefficiencies.
2. Vendor-Driven Hype
Cloud vendors promote microservices as essential for modern systems, reinforcing the misconception that using microservices equates to having an architecture.
3. Lack of Governance
Microservices create technical flexibility, but without a cohesive architectural framework, teams end up with inconsistencies and integration challenges.
What Happens Without Real Architecture?
Organizations that rely solely on microservices without a unified architecture face:
Operational Inefficiencies:
Services may scale independently, but workflows become fragmented, leading to delays and errors.
Technical Debt:
Poorly designed microservices create dependencies that are difficult to untangle or adapt.
Business Misalignment:
Services may optimize technical performance but fail to deliver value to the business.
High Costs:
Managing and maintaining dozens—or even hundreds—of disconnected services becomes expensive and resource-intensive.
Example: Applying the ICMG Model to Microservices
Let’s consider a Customer Support System:
Microservices-Only Approach
Split into services like ticket management, agent assignment, and escalation.
Focuses on technology choices, such as containerization and API gateways.
ICMG Anatomy Model Approach
Goals/Strategy: Ensure faster response times and higher customer satisfaction.
Processes: Map workflows from ticket creation to resolution, integrating escalation and feedback loops.
Systems: Connect microservices with CRM, analytics, and billing systems.
Components: Use microservices for modularity but ensure they fit into the broader system.
Implementation: Phase the rollout to avoid service interruptions.
Operations: Monitor service health, security, and compliance across all services.
Key Difference: The ICMG model ensures microservices are part of a larger strategy, not just isolated components.
Microservices Are a Tool, Not Architecture
While microservices are a valuable programming design pattern, they are not architecture. True architecture is about aligning systems with business goals, optimizing processes, and creating a cohesive system that adapts to change. The ICMG Enterprise Anatomy Model provides the framework needed to move beyond tool-centric thinking and design systems that deliver long-term value.
A Note to Microservices Architects: Building on Your Expertise
As a microservices specialist, your ability to design modular, scalable, and independently deployable services is instrumental in driving innovation and agility. Your work ensures systems are resilient and adaptable, forming the backbone of modern software solutions.
To take your impact even further, consider integrating your expertise with the broader perspective of Enterprise Anatomy. In this approach, every microservice is not just a standalone unit but a critical component within the larger system of systems that defines the enterprise. Just as a neuron is vital to the nervous system and the nervous system to the human anatomy, each microservice plays a crucial role in the enterprise's overall functionality and success.
By embracing the "One Enterprise, One Anatomy" model, you can expand your focus beyond individual services to align strategy, processes, systems, and components into a unified whole. Understanding how microservices interact with other enterprise elements—such as process flows, data integration, and system logic—allows you to create solutions that deliver value not just at the service level but across the entire organization.
Your expertise in microservices is a powerful foundation. Connecting it to the complete anatomy of the enterprise unlocks opportunities to design systems that are not only agile but also seamlessly integrated and future-ready.
Every Project and Product Has One and Only One Anatomy
Just as the human body has a singular anatomy that integrates its systems into a cohesive whole, every project and product has its own unique, complete anatomy. This anatomy defines its structure, processes, systems, components, and operations. Without understanding and designing this one anatomy, projects become chaotic, disconnected, and misaligned with business needs.
In the world of IT, we've reduced architecture to a collection of fragmented diagrams, unstructured workflows, and individual expertise stored in people's minds. Compare this to construction, where a 10-story building requires 100-200 visual models across 8+ categories, and a 50-story skyscraper demands 500-1,000+ detailed plans.
The difference is stark: in construction, architecture is the backbone of execution. In IT, it's often treated as an afterthought.
The question is not “Are you using microservices?” It’s “Are you architecting a unified system?”
Comentários